Michael Rosefield wrote:
> 1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to
> 'push' the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely
> scenario - any situation where death is probable requires an improbable
> get-out clause. The patient may well find themselves in a world where
> their suffering is curable/has been cured. Might even be brains-in-jars
> 2) I think that neural systems possess a quality called something like
> 'graceful decline;' the brain can undergo a lot of random damage before
> its function is significantly affected. But once it does start to go
> down the toilet, I'm not sure what the conscious experience of that
> would be. Presumably it would be something like Alzheimers or a pretty
> bad case of the mornings, and everything would appear to be rather
> scattershot and disconnected. From the perspective of the victim (I
> would say 'patient' again, but let's face it - this is one mean
> scenario!) I wonder if this weakens the connection to this particular
> context, and they'd find it more likely to move in the direction of
> universes in which the process is reversed or nullified.
You seem to implicitly assume that the subject's consciousness is a single,
unified "thing" that can move hither and yon in the Hilbert space of the
universe. But the multiple-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, on
the above scenarios are based, says that the physical basis of consciousness
splits almost continuously into non-interacting subspaces. Are we to suppose
that your other brains in Hilbert space are empty of consciousness until you
"move" to them?
> 2008/10/22 razihassan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> Hi all
> First post! I'm happy to have found this list as much of it coincides
> with what I've been thinking about in the past few years, esp. after
> reading about quantum roulette and realising, as many others have
> done, that this leads to quantum immortality.
> 1) Lately, I've been thinking about euthanasia and the QTI.
> Previously, being somewhat of a liberal in these matters, I've always
> held that, assuming proper checks and balances (BIG assumption),
> euthanasia was ok, as it relieved the suffering of the patient as well
> as their loved ones.
> If QTI holds then "killing" the patient won't work (from the patient's
> frame of reference), so you're not actually alleviating their
> suffering. You may of course be relieving the suffering of the
> patient's loved ones (from THEIR pov) but I think we're on dangerous
> ground when you consider whether or not you should kill someone solely
> for their' families' sake.
> So, should QTI-ists be campaigning against euthanasia, not because of
> the traditional 'life is sacred' objection, but because it simply
> doesn't work? Can anyone see an alternative - based perhaps on
> anaethetising the patient indefinitely?
> 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain
> cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine
> pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator.
> Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of
> the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells,
> since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level
> of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always
> maintain the physical brain?
> If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that
> all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for
> as long as our brains are physical?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at